Jewish Supremacist calls shrinking white population “a good thing”.. what if we called shrinking Jewish population “a good thing”

http://www.davidduke.com/?p=37401
Dr. Patrick Slattery Dec 07, 2012 |

By Dr. Patrick Slattery – Okay, so it’s not exactly breaking news that Jewish supremacists have been pushing for massive immigration in order to make whites a minority in America, as they already are in our elite universities. But it can still be breathtaking to see just how brazenly they can promote this agenda without blinking an eye and without facing any protest

. Here is a short clip of Jewish journalist Emily Bazelon hailing the prospect of whites becoming a minority in America as “a good thing.” She claims that “We live in a melting pot, immigrant filled society with all different races and we want to keep it that way.” But she doesn’t even want to keep it the way it is now, she wants to change it further. When Colbert mentions that whites are a majority she quickly interrupts him to say that not for long, insisting that “We are going to continue to be more and more diverse, and that’s a good thing.” This statement goes unchallenged. If Colbert had said that America has a white majority and he wants to keep it that way, what kind of reaction to you think he would have gotten?

The occasion for the interview was the Supreme Court case on affirmative action at the University of Texas. Bazelon defends the policy by saying that “If you get rid of affirmative action it benefits white people.” Clearly she wouldn’t want to do that. Moreover, she states that “All the research shows that without affirmative action there will be fewer blacks and Hispanics.”

At the start of the interview Colbert identified Bazelon as “white,” and so she could appear magnanimous in promoting affirmative action for blacks and Hispanics while acknowledging that it is at the disadvantage of whites. However, she is not actually facing any disadvantage. Jews like Bazelon, who make up just 2% of the population, account for 20-30% of the students admitted to elite universities, often a higher percentage than non-jewish European Americans, who still make up 70% of the population. Talk about “affirmative action!” As unfair as it is that many white kids can’t get into a top school because of official affirmative action in favor of blacks and Hispanics, the biggest damage has to be that official affirmative action is a distraction from this massive unofficial, pro-Jewish affirmative action. What better example of divide and conquer! White students are filing suits claiming that affirmative action for blacks and Hispanics discriminates against them. Asian students, who do not benefit from affirmative action and make up 16% of Harvard and two to three times that at California’s top schools, are filing suits claiming that they are being subjected to quotas by whites. Meanwhile, Jews can have their cake and eat it too, being a magnanimous white trying to lift up disadvantaged minorities one moment, claiming to be a disadvantaged minority the next, while all the time being a super-privileged ruling class. The goyim fight amongst themselves, and nobody dares point a finger at the Jews.

How is it that Jews are accepted at rates some 30 times higher in relation to their share of the population than non-Jewish European Americans? Is it really that whites are such imbeciles? Of course not. It’s because faculties and administrations dominated by Jews are reading the applications. And the applications make it clear who is Jewish and who is just plain white. The Common Application, which is used by all leading schools, requires that applicants check a box for race. The religion box is optional, but available to anyone who feels it would be an advantage to fill it in, perhaps because their name does not sound Jewish enough. However, if that were all there was to it, the pro-Jewish discrimination would be too transparent. Bazelon sheds some light on the mechanism. She says that in addition to grades and test scores, schools may choose to consider other “personal attributes,” such as community service, leadership, or the responses to the essay questions that are required. This allows for subjective considerations to trump objective test scores. An applicant can claim involvement in coaching a kids basketball team at the Jewish Community Center or raising money for a Jewish charity. Who’s to say how this should be assessed? As for the essay questions, here is one from last year’s application:

“A range of academic interests, personal perspectives, and life experiences adds much to the educational mix. Given your personal background, describe an experience that illustrates what you would bring to the diversity in a college community, or an encounter that demonstrated the importance of diversity to you.”

How is a white kid from Iowa supposed to answer what he would bring to the diversity in a college community? How do you think the Jews on the admissions committed would respond if he said “I’m a white Christian, that would make me something of a rarity on your campus.”? Let’s ask Emily Bazelon what kind of diversity she brings. She went to Israel straight out of college, married a Jewish man (so much for her melting pot), gave her kids Jewish names, clerked for a Jewish judge after law school, took an AIPAC-financed junket to Israel to get “background information” on the Palestinian issue, works for a Jewish on-line magazine, and says Palestinians don’t engage in non-violence because its not in their nature. That’s the kind of diversity that Ivy League schools really seem to like their students to bring to their college communities!

First US Presidential Debate 2012: Mitt met Monkey called Obama minus Teleprompter and Turned It into a Mumbling Moron!

Romney humiliated Obama in the presidential debate.

Well,………………………… that was fare worse than the article describes.

http://blogs.telegraph.co.uk/news/timstanley/100183736/romney-humiliated-obama-in-the-presidential-debate-this-election-isnt-over/
Last updated: October 4th, 2012
Comment on this Comment on this article

Last night was a good example of what happens when you take President Obama off an autocue. He falls to pieces. Obama’s performance during the first presidential debate was a mess. The subject was domestic policy – passing through economics, the debt, healthcare and the role of government. Through it all, the President looked distracted and tired, his eyes often drifting to the notes on the podium as if he might be sneakily answering texts. He directed his answers at the moderator, rather than his opponent, and only looked the camera in the eye a handful of times. Perhaps the goal was to appear statesmanlike, but the result was somewhere between bored and superior.

His debating technique was no better. The President started and finished on the defensive, refusing to hit out at Romney and preferring to deliver stuttering apologias for his four years in office. He missed at least two chances to wound Romney. On the first, he conceded that there was little difference between the two men when it came to Social Security (it’s typical for Democrats to claim that Republicans want to privatise it and use old people for firewood). On the second, he answered a question about Obamacare by outlining all its provisions – waiting until the very last line to point out that Romney implemented a similar reform in Massachusetts. Romney’s biggest weakness is his reputation for flip-flopping, yet Obama gave him the opportunity to rebut the u-turn charge and focus all the energy of the debate back onto the White House’s controversial programs.

Constantly, Obama tried to articulate a centrist message. But that message committed the greatest crime you can commit on live TV: it was boring. There was no passion, no class rhetoric and no personal stories. He seems to have had the hope and change drained from him. Obama closed by promising to fight “just as hard” in the second term as he had in the first. That translates as, “More of the same.” To anyone unemployed, under-employed or struggling to get by, that’s a miserable prospect.

By contrast, Mitt Romney was a human dynamo. This is why the Republicans nominated him: he’s great at debating and he doesn’t look mad (which is also why we didn’t end up with Rick Perry or Michele Bachmann). To all the Brits who think he’s just a loudmouth Right-winger who insulted our Olympics, the footage that gets played on the UK news will come as a shock. Mitt was funny, enthusiastic, almost gleeful. His obvious delight in confronting the President head on was matched by a skilful manipulation of words. Anything worth remembering from the debate came from Romney’s lips – from “trickle down government” to “I like Big Bird.” His themes were conservative (he said that government was there to help the vulnerable but should otherwise get out of the way), but the detail was moderate. No, he would not end all regulation. Yes, he would keep education funding and Medicare payments intact. And by saying that his biggest beefs with Obamcare were the cost to the individual and the overgrowth of federal government, he was basically offering America “Obamacare without the bad bits.” You might call it, Romneycare.

On Thursday morning, liberal commentators will be searching for nice things to say about Obama’s weak performance and Team Obama will blame it on his lack of time to prepare (although the Prez found plenty of time to campaign in Las Vegas during the Middle East crisis). But there’s no escaping that this was Romney 1 and Obama 0. Conservatives will be buoyed up and looking for some movement in the polls. Nationally, they are closer than you might think, and NBC reports that the gap is shrinking in Florida and Virginia. This debate must mark a shift in the narrative, and many voters might give Romney a second look. It’s possible – just possible – that these debates will make Mitt into a contender again.

To revive the often made comparison with 1980 – perhaps Romney isn’t quite Ronald Reagan. But Barack Obama suddenly looks a lot more like Jimmy Carter.
Tags: Barack Obama, big bird, Michele Bachmann, Mitt Romney, ObamaCare, presidential debates, Rick Perry
Note:

Both Romney and Obama are controlled by International Jewish Bankers. The difference is :
Romney is White….. Obama is Black
Romney is Smart…..Obama is Stupid
Romney is Hated by main Stream Media, Christian-Haters Gays, and other Perverts……. Obama is adored by Main Stream Media, Christian-Haters Gays, and other Perverts

Who owns the Main Stream media , you guessed it. The hooked noses do. Read more here:

Who Owns The Media 2012?
http://www.realjewnews.com/?p=759
http://www.youtube.com/watch?feature=player_embedded&v=h4l3saFnlmA

• Brother Nathanael October 2, 2012 @ 2:16 pm
Text –Text– Text
Who Owns The Media 2012?
By Brother Nathanael Kapner
Copyright 2012

Election time is here once again and the lure that your vote “makes a difference” is nothing more than a scam.

You see, the boyz who run the Propaganda Machine—The Main Stream Media—are the ones who decide who will live and who will die.

Naah, they’re not “presstitutes” like Gerald Celente would have us believe. And no, the Machine is not “corporate owned” like Alex Jones tells us.
They’re Jews and I’m going to tell you just who they are.

CBS is owned by Murray Rothstein, he passes himself off as Sumner Redstone.

NBC is owned by Brian Roberts. His CEO is Jeff Zucker.

ABC’s CEO is Robert Iger he took the reins from Disney’s Michael Eisner.

Fox News is owned by Rupert Murdoch – a proven Zionist – his mother, Elisabeth Green, is of Jewish extraction.

CNN is owned by Time-Warner where Jewish mogul, Carl Icahn, apparently calls the shots.

Its top reporter Dana Bash who trashed Ron Paul back in the Primaries

Clip: “There’s no question I’m sure you talk to Republicans who are worried as well just like I am that Ron Paul will continue on long into the spring and summer further even if he runs as Republican or as an independent nobody thinks he will ultimately be the nominee.”

Well, of course she’s worried; her real name is Dana Ruth Schwartz.

Print media bears the same Jewish stamp.

To name a few: Time Magazine shifts from one Jew to another. The New York Times is owned by the Sulzberger family and Newsweek is co-owned by Jane Harman and Hollywood’s Barry Diller. All bringing the ‘news that’s ‘fit to print’ as long as it has a strong Jewish imprint.

So go ahead and vote – but the Jewish fix is in. They smeared Pat Buchanan back in the 90’s and ignored Ron Paul in 2012, and left us with two losers to choose from.
You see, “democracy” is any country, like Amerika, where Jews are in control.

And they’ve got the media all wrapped up: lock, stock, and you, over the barrel.

Conference on Syria should be called a “Conference of bribing Israel” – Larijani
3 April 2012, 10:58 (GMT+05:00)

Azerbaijan, Baku, April 3 /Trend S.Isayev, T. Jafarov/

The real name of the Syria issue conference in Istanbul could be called a “Conference of bribing Israel”, Chairman of Iranian Parliament Ali Larijani said this morning during the parliamentary meeting, FARS reported.

The “Friends of Syria” group meeting was held in Turkey on April 1. Russia was officially invited to participate but refused, while Iran did not receive any invitation at all. First such meeting took place in Tunisia on Feb. 24, where China and Russia did not participate.

Larijani underscored that this meeting is oriented on “giving Israel a breathe of fresh air”.

“Regional countries call Assad’s regime a dictatorship, while they themselves have such regimes. And now, they want to provide Syria with military aid,” Larijani said. “This kind of military aid is to cause destabilization in the region and to break down the resistance against Israel”.

Considering this, the conference should have been called differently, Larijani added.

Addressing the participants of the “Friends of Syria” conference, Larijani said that Iran condemns fake slogans that aim to support democracy.

http://en.trend.az/regions/iran/2009777.html

Obama the Charming Chimp signed his name to H.R. 347 on Thursday, officially making it a federal offense to Protest at certain political events — essentially criminalizing protest in the States. What now, does he deserve to be called Baboon?

http://rt.com/usa/news/trespass-bill-obama-secret-227/

Obama signs anti protest Trespass Bill
Get short URL
email story to a friend print version
Published: 10 March, 2012, 00:52

US President Barack Obama

TAGS: Crime, Obama, Protest, Law, USA, Planes

Only days after clearing Congress, US President Barack Obama signed his name to H.R. 347 on Thursday, officially making it a federal offense to cause a disturbance at certain political events — essentially criminalizing protest in the States.

RT broke the news last month that H.R. 347, the Federal Restricted Buildings and Grounds Improvement Act of 2011, had overwhelmingly passed the US House of Representatives after only three lawmakers voted against it. On Thursday this week, President Obama inked his name to the legislation and authorized the government to start enforcing a law that has many Americans concerned over how the bill could bury the rights to assemble and protest as guaranteed in the US Constitution.

Under H.R. 347, which has more commonly been labeled the Trespass Bill by Congress, knowingly entering a restricted area that is under the jurisdiction of Secret Service protection can garner an arrest. The law is actually only a slight change to earlier legislation that made it an offense to knowingly and willfully commit such a crime. Under the Trespass Bill’s latest language chance, however, someone could end up in law enforcement custody for entering an area that they don’t realize is Secret Service protected and “engages in disorderly or disruptive conduct” or “impedes or disrupts the orderly conduct of Government business or official functions.”

The Secret Service serves as the police that protects not just current and former American presidents, but are also dispatched to monitor special events of national significance, a category with a broad cast of qualifiers. In the past, sporting events, state funerals, inaugural addresses and NATO and G-8 Summits have been designated as such by the US Department of Homeland Security, the division that decides when and where the Secret Service are needed outside of their normal coverage.

Mara Verheyden-Hilliard of the Partnership for Civil Justice Fund tells the International Business Times that the Trespass Bill in its current form “means it’s easier to prosecute under ‘knowingly,’” instead of both knowingly and willfully, “which is an issue because someone could knowingly enter a restricted but not necessarily realize they are committing a crime.” Speaking with IB Times, Verheyden-Hilliard tries to lay to rest claims that the Constitution will be crippled by the Trespass Bill, but acknowledges that it does indeed allow law enforcement to have added incentive to arrest protesters who could be causing a disturbance.

“HR 347 has been described as a death knell for the First Amendment, but that isn’t supported by the facts,” Verheyden-Hilliard adds. “This has always been a bad law.”

Gabe Rottman of the American Civil Liberties Union adds to IB Times, “Bottom line, it doesn’t create any new violations of the law.” So far, however, it has raised awareness of the levels that the US government are willing to go to in order to make it harder to express ones’ self.

Under the act, protesting in areas covered by Secret Service could land a demonstrator behind bars, and the thing about the Secret Service (in case you couldn’t tell by their name), is that they don’t always make it clear where they are. You could even say that the service they provide, at times, is kept secret.
Presidential hopefuls Newt Gingrich, Mitt Romney and Rick Santorum are now officially covered under Secret Service protection, making it a federal offense to disrupt a campaign stop. That means whether it’s by way of a glitter bomb protest or causing a disturbance on the same Holiday Inn hotel floor that Santorum is staying in, doing such could cause a bit of a legal battle for the persons involved.

Although the G-8 Summit originally scheduled for Chicago this spring would have made much of the Windy City a protected area where crimes could easily be tacked on to arrested protesters, the event was moved this week to the presidential retreat at Camp David. In turn, many have suggested that the White House is only going out of their way to limit protesting rights. While a Chicago summit would have meant the Trespass Bill could have been enforced in the same area where thousands of demonstrators were expected to protest, moving the event to a heavily fortified rural location will instead deter protesters from likely coming close atto the meeting at all.

And before you forget, the president can now detain you for getting too close to his front yard, order your assassination if the country considers you a threat and lock you away for life with no charge if you’re alleged to be a terrorist. You, on the other hand, can’t yell obscenities at Newt Gingrich without risking arrest.

Also read

…..

Goodbye, First Amendment: ‘Trespass Bill’ will make protest illegal
Get short URL
email story to a friend print version
Published: 29 February, 2012, 02:13

http://rt.com/usa/news/348-act-tresspass-buildings-437/

Washington: US park police detains a Christian religious activist during a pro-life demonstration in front of the White House in Washington on February 16, 2012. (AFP Photo/Jewel Samad)

TRENDS: Defense Authorization Act
TAGS: Crime, Politics, Law, USA

Just when you thought the government couldn’t ruin the First Amendment any further: The House of Representatives approved a bill on Monday that outlaws protests in instances where some government officials are nearby, whether or not you even know it.

The US House of Representatives voted 388-to-3 in favor of H.R. 347 late Monday, a bill which is being dubbed the Federal Restricted Buildings and Grounds Improvement Act of 2011. In the bill, Congress officially makes it illegal to trespass on the grounds of the White House, which, on the surface, seems not just harmless and necessary, but somewhat shocking that such a rule isn’t already on the books. The wording in the bill, however, extends to allow the government to go after much more than tourists that transverse the wrought iron White House fence.

Under the act, the government is also given the power to bring charges against Americans engaged in political protest anywhere in the country.

Under current law, White House trespassers are prosecuted under a local ordinance, a Washington, DC legislation that can bring misdemeanor charges for anyone trying to get close to the president without authorization. Under H.R. 347, a federal law will formally be applied to such instances, but will also allow the government to bring charges to protesters, demonstrators and activists at political events and other outings across America.

The new legislation allows prosecutors to charge anyone who enters a building without permission or with the intent to disrupt a government function with a federal offense if Secret Service is on the scene, but the law stretches to include not just the president’s palatial Pennsylvania Avenue home. Under the law, any building or grounds where the president is visiting — even temporarily — is covered, as is any building or grounds “restricted in conjunction with an event designated as a special event of national significance.”

It’s not just the president who would be spared from protesters, either.

Covered under the bill is any person protected by the Secret Service. Although such protection isn’t extended to just everybody, making it a federal offense to even accidently disrupt an event attended by a person with such status essentially crushes whatever currently remains of the right to assemble and peacefully protest.

Hours after the act passed, presidential candidate Rick Santorum was granted Secret Service protection. For the American protester, this indeed means that glitter-bombing the former Pennsylvania senator is officially a very big no-no, but it doesn’t stop with just him. Santorum’s coverage under the Secret Service began on Tuesday, but fellow GOP hopeful Mitt Romney has already been receiving such security. A campaign aide who asked not to be identified confirmed last week to CBS News that former House Speaker Newt Gingrich has sought Secret Service protection as well. Even former contender Herman Cain received the armed protection treatment when he was still in the running for the Republican Party nod.

In the text of the act, the law is allowed to be used against anyone who knowingly enters or remains in a restricted building or grounds without lawful authority to do so, but those grounds are considered any area where someone — rather it’s President Obama, Senator Santorum or Governor Romney — will be temporarily visiting, whether or not the public is even made aware. Entering such a facility is thus outlawed, as is disrupting the orderly conduct of “official functions,” engaging in disorderly conduct “within such proximity to” the event or acting violent to anyone, anywhere near the premises. Under that verbiage, that means a peaceful protest outside a candidate’s concession speech would be a federal offense, but those occurrences covered as special event of national significance don’t just stop there, either. And neither does the list of covered persons that receive protection.

Outside of the current presidential race, the Secret Service is responsible for guarding an array of politicians, even those from outside America. George W Bush is granted protection until ten years after his administration ended, or 2019, and every living president before him is eligible for life-time, federally funded coverage. Visiting heads of state are extended an offer too, and the events sanctioned as those of national significance — a decision that is left up to the US Department of Homeland Security — extends to more than the obvious. While presidential inaugurations and meeting of foreign dignitaries are awarded the title, nearly three dozen events in all have been considered a National Special Security Event (NSSE) since the term was created under President Clinton. Among past events on the DHS-sanctioned NSSE list are Super Bowl XXXVI, the funerals of Ronald Reagan and Gerald Ford, most State of the Union addresses and the 2008 Democratic and Republican National Conventions.

With Secret Service protection awarded to visiting dignitaries, this also means, for instance, that the federal government could consider a demonstration against any foreign president on American soil as a violation of federal law, as long as it could be considered disruptive to whatever function is occurring.

When thousands of protesters are expected to descend on Chicago this spring for the 2012 G8 and NATO summits, they will also be approaching the grounds of a National Special Security Event. That means disruptive activity, to whichever court has to consider it, will be a federal offense under the act.

And don’t forget if you intend on fighting such charges, you might not be able to rely on evidence of your own. In the state of Illinois, videotaping the police, under current law, brings criminals charges. Don’t fret. It’s not like the country will really try to enforce it — right?

On the bright side, does this mean that the law could apply to law enforcement officers reprimanded for using excessive force on protesters at political events? Probably. Of course, some fear that the act is being created just to keep those demonstrations from ever occuring, and given the vague language on par with the loose definition of a “terrorist” under the NDAA, if passed this act is expected to do a lot more harm to the First Amendment than good.

United States Representative Justin Amash (MI-03) was one of only three lawmakers to vote against the act when it appeared in the House late Monday. Explaining his take on the act through his official Facebook account on Tuesday, Rep. Amash writes, “The bill expands current law to make it a crime to enter or remain in an area where an official is visiting even if the person does not know it’s illegal to be in that area and has no reason to suspect it’s illegal.”

“Some government officials may need extraordinary protection to ensure their safety. But criminalizing legitimate First Amendment activity — even if that activity is annoying to those government officials — violates our rights,” adds the representative.

Now that the act has overwhelmingly made it through the House, the next set of hands to sift through its pages could very well be President Barack Obama; the US Senate had already passed the bill back on February 6. Less than two months ago, the president approved the National Defense Authorization Act for Fiscal Year 2012, essentially suspending habeas corpus from American citizens. Could the next order out of the Executive Branch be revoking some of the Bill of Rights? Only if you consider the part about being able to assemble a staple of the First Amendment, really. Don’t worry, though. Obama was, after all, a constitutional law professor. When he signed the NDAA on December 31, he accompanied his signature with a signing statement that let Americans know that, just because he authorized the indefinite detention of Americans didn’t mean he thought it was right.

Should President Obama suspend the right to assemble, Americans might expect another apology to accompany it in which the commander-in-chief condemns the very act he authorizes. If you disagree with such a decision, however, don’t take it to the White House. Sixteen-hundred Pennsylvania Avenue and the vicinity is, of course, covered under this act.